BailNow.in News Snack

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail to Five Accused in Kanhaiya Lal Murder Case

Court cites terrorism as an assault on peace and sovereignty, not an ordinary crime.

Bench stresses UAPA’s strict bail restrictions and ongoing rapid trial progress.

By Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 05, 2026:

The Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to five accused in the 2022 Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, ruling that terrorism is “a weapon of the weak” and emphasizing that the gravity of the offence, specific roles in the conspiracy, and rapid trial progress weigh against bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Case Background

• Incident: On June 28, 2022, tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli was brutally murdered inside his shop in Udaipur.
• Trigger: His son had shared a social media post supporting ex-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who made controversial remarks about the Prophet.
• Attack: Assailants filmed the murder, circulated videos online, threatened PM Narendra Modi, and sought to instill communal fear.
• Investigation: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over, charging the accused under IPC sections (302, 452, 153A, etc.) and UAPA sections (16, 18, 20).

High Court’s Observations

• Bench: Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain.
• Quote: “Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak.”
• Reasoning:
  • Terrorism is not just physical violence but a “calculated assault on psychological sovereignty.”
  • The murder was part of a deep-rooted conspiracy with videos circulated to spread terror.
  • Bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA is barred if accusations appear prima facie true.
• Trial Progress: NIA reduced witness list from 180 to 89; nearly 30 examined already.
• Decision: Bail denied; Special NIA Court’s earlier rejection upheld.

Defence vs. Prosecution

• Accused Argument: No evidence of presence near the shop; prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 rights.
• NIA Response: Accused played “active, indispensable, and integral roles” in conspiracy; evidence includes call records, witness statements, weapons, and videos.

FAQs

Q1: Why was bail denied?

Because UAPA restricts bail if accusations are prima facie true, and the gravity of terrorism outweighed defence arguments.

Q2: Who are the accused?

Wasim Ali, Muslim Khan, Mohsin Khan, Mohammad Mohsin, and Asif Hussain.

Q3: What legal provision applies?

Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which imposes strict bail restrictions.

Q4: What did the Court emphasize?

That terrorism aims to replace the “rule of law” with the “rule of fear.”

Q5: Is the trial delayed?

No, the Court noted rapid progress with key witnesses already examined.

Q6: Can bail be reconsidered later?

Yes, but only if trial circumstances change or evidence weakens.

Q7: What precedent did the Court rely on?

NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which clarified bail restrictions under UAPA.

Q8: What is the broader impact?

The ruling reinforces India’s tough stance on terrorism and communal violence.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case underscores the judiciary’s uncompromising approach to terrorism-related offences. By denying bail, the Court reinforced that terrorism is not an ordinary crime but a calculated attempt to destabilize peace and sovereignty. The ruling also highlights UAPA’s stringent bail provisions, ensuring that accused individuals cannot exploit prolonged incarceration or procedural loopholes. As the trial progresses swiftly, the case stands as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing constitutional rights with national security imperatives.